University of South Carolina Libraries
T" .' ". ll?**PK?MM?M?aBaM?aiMinMMMBMMBaMaaM!pM^r ^ 1 'I. I'M, "l:1"'" ' |' j *'liW ?,gw?j?i|. .1 j .1 nP.fi t^l 1 IJ > ?vf/m fHm* m,, .fill j ,11. u i.^py BY W. A. LEE AND HUGH WILSON. ABBEVILLE, S. C., FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 3, 18G9. VOLUME XVir?NO. in wMW?I? ?? won??i ?? m m i ?a,g???mmm-ammc fptiT? rttrT.RT3i?\T I ,1:.?i '- * 1 - 1 1 " I HJaJL4 VUXiJUiVU'lV The following beautiful poem T.ns written by CI aries Diokens: When the lessons and tiski arc oil e tide J, Aud the school for the day is disituissod. And the little one* gather round me, To bid me go >d n g: t u id b} kis.-o !; Oh, the little vliitc nrnia that encircle My neck in a tender embrace! Oh, the smiles that are linlos of heaven, Shedding uuiuhincof love 0:1 my face! I And whoa they arc gone I sit ?lrcatn:ng Of iry chilhood, too lovely to la#t: Of love that my heart will remember, "When it wakes to the pnlse of tl'.e past? Ero tlie wi r <1 and its wickedness made me ' A patnor of sorrow and sin ; When the glory of CJod was i.bout mo, And the glory of gluduoos within. Oh, try heart grows wenk as a woman's, And the fountains of fooling will How, When 1 think of the paths steep and stony, Where the foot of the dtnr ones must go ; Of the mountains of sin hanging o'er them, Of the tempest of l'ute Mowing wild; Oh there is nothing on heart ha'.f s<? hvly As the innocent heart of a child! "they are idols of hearts and of homehoUla; Th?y are angels of God in disguise; His sunlight st ill sleeps in their tresses, Ilis glory still gleams in their eyes; Oh, those truants from home ami from lionven, j They have made me civre manly and tuilu! j And I know how Jesus cjuM lik^n The Kingdom of God to a chil l. I ask notalif>? for the dear ones, All radiant as others have done But that life tuav have just enough shadow To tomp.-r the glare oi" the sun ; I would piay God to g:;a'>1 ihe.n from evil. But m\ p ay or would li-nind back to iiiynelf , Ah ! a eerupli muy pray for a jdnuer, But a sinner must pray for himself. The twig is so cosily 1 e '. ! d, 1 have br.nislicd the rtil.- and the ro 1 ; ' ( 1 havetauiiht thorn tlic ?>oodiies-? --f kmiwh- : . Tli?y have taught me (he gcod.ie.ss t-f God; j My lieait is a dungeon of d?irkm?.-s, , 1 Where I shut thorn from hreakiisi; a rule: ' 1 { My frown is st:fl1<:i?-ut correction ; ; / My loye is the law of the seh-.ol. ' ( I ah til le-tve the < d hnu.** "n the n'.iluuin, To traverse its tarcsUv'd n moiv ; { Ah! how I thall sigh for U.c dia.'onts i | That ine< t ine each inurn a! the do.M ! I ahull iuis.s the "good niirlue. " :;ud tii?- KisacJ, I Aud iho gusli of ti.eir iuiioa-nt ^!?.e, j C The group ou the green, &nd the '.low.id | j, Vkut are broogLt every n:or:iiiig to trie. > I shall miss them at morn nr><I n'- <-v r.ing, Their song in the ftjliutd and tin.1 htivt I ; ,L 1 eliall uiisi lite iow hum of ili?jir voice*, v And the tramp of their d?rli';ftt?j feet. I When the h'.-BOus and ta*l;s an.- .ill ei'de.l. And deatli says, ' The eeiiool is dismissed!' ! 1 May the little oues ga"h< j- lound mc, J ^ To bid iue good night and be kissed. ! j The Law of Divorce. j, John IT. Walker vs. Mny J. W?l-' ~ kcr?In the Common J't.-as?Enid ti/ side, Greenville, 31"u '1\ na. ; * 1869?Petition for Divorce?A \ ' Vinculo ]\l'(lremoi,i. j ^ Tlic Petitioner, John If. Walker, ^ filed his petition ou the 31 March 1869, against Mary Jane Yv'aiker, " 'a Lis wife, praying "a divorce a rin-! culo matrimonii from the paid Mary ! and that she he permitted to re-: ' BUinc her maiden name of Mary J. |' ti Few," on the ground, that a few ; ^ "months after their marriage, his | n ' I c %vife became exceedingly unhappy ] ^ in her disposition, unkind in her.-i treatment to him, used violent,: ^ abusive and menacing language towards him, and constantly manifes- j ii ted a determined malignity towards ! li him." She accompanied her lan-j <1 guage with blows on several occa- i t: sions."?"Her hostility, violence i ? and malignity to him increased, un- j til at length it became intolerable, ! x and they willfully separated about ! ? November, 18G0, since which time v o they have lived apart." The parties were duly married on the 31st July, 1856, and a deed of j n separation executed by them the tl 80th January 1801. The Defen- j y daut having failed to plead, answer ; tl or demur within tlie rule, the pc-! p tition was taken pro confcsso on the j ci 17tli May, 18G9. Testimony was j t' taken before the Clerk in support P pf the allegations of the petition Av and reported to the Court. One of ^ the witnesses says of Defendant: 0 "She had a rmss nvnlihn/1 i tion." "It was impossible for any d reasonable minded man to have j, lived in peace and happiness with p liQr." Auothcr witness says she "is ti a high tempered woman hard to p jget along with; wanted her own w way entirely;" tliiuks it utterly c< impossible that they will ever live rr together again." Another witness p Bay the petitioner "treated her 111 \indly and affectionately; attemp- 01 ted to live in peace with her; she B? % - - * - "** oecsme dissatisfied without causc ; became ill and cross to him; atone ^ time struck at bim ; she constantly m got worse in her disposition and ac- e, tions toward bim till their separa- oi lion." Before entering upon the considr j0 eration of the legal principles in- c< volvQd in this case?an application tli o tbo Court to make a dccrce of fr vAivuit^u?wind! mis ueen neretojore I uniformly refused by the Legisla-1 turc and Courts of this State in all similar applications, it is proper to determine whether the Courts of i the State are now invested with ; jurisdiction to hear* and determine ! such eases: j In the Kingdom of Great Tiritain ! the jurisdiction of matrimonial I I questions belonged to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and divorces a vinculo matrimonii were restricted in Engto causes which existed at the time the marriage was contracted, such as causa mctus, causa im potential, caus i a ifiuilalis, (ansa consanguinitatis, &e. ; and though the marriage was unlawful, a sentence of nullity of marriage was necessary to dissolve the bonds of matrimony. Marriage was regarded a sacrament of the Church, and the Pope, exercising a controlling temporal power of Europe, required that the ( cognisance of such subjects should : be confided exclusively in theEccle- , siastical Courts, and that divorces ( a vinculo should not he granted I even by Unit Court for causes ari- f sing subsequent to (lie marrige. .! The dispensation of the head of the 1 Church being the only recognized ^ authority to dissolve a marriage for J causes arising subsequent to its 1 contraction, though the temporal 1 uowcr of the Pope has long since ( ceased in England the original ju- v risdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts lias not ueeis enlarged ; they uc rest rioted to granting divorces c i minx* it flora, and the l'arlia- t inent alone can grant a divorce a i'-ralo for adultery or any other I iiu.-e arising after the marriage, j i\ This, however, is not the law in all j s ,'ie liriti.sh Empire. In Scotland, j < ,he fioformafnm exploded this rule i 11 )f the Hoini-ih Church, and divorf ses a rlnvuh Matrimonii for adultery j ' tnd wilful or malicious desertion 'r i.. - - 1( wucu uiiiiurujiv trruiitcil. * o For the name cause.", divorcee I | vinculo arc granted by all the Hates of the American "Union, res*ilated most generally by statute, nit having the authority oi' the t 'omnion law as administered in a a >art oi" the British Empire; and v. or the iirst cause, adultery, the ti ositivc authority of the Scriptures n ?'.vhiclj furnish to all Christian 11aions the highest, purest and safest ^ ules for social and moral action, j n ?Ia)thew, v : 32. i l' All religions under the Federal j nd State Constitutions arc protcc-1 od in their full and unrestrained i ^ xereisc, lint none are established, .< iiid therefore the tenets or canons c, >f none should control the deteruination of the question when. how c nil for what causes tlie bonds of uatriniony should be dissolved. M t is a question to bo solved by ^ onsiderations of moral, social and 111 olilieal expediency and propriety. w Vhen 1 lie responsible relation has!"' oeii entered into, and one of the J bi arties utterly fail, from base deprav- j ti y or ot her grave cause to fulfill its j ni igli and sacred duties, i:4 it not the i C1 ulv of the State to provide pcme'J1 ribiinal to adjudge the failure and j rdcr the dissolution of the relation. 'his tribunal should be restrietoil in i ni lie exercise of such powers to causes f the utmost gravity only; thoso b< ;bich arc temporary or frivolous, a' ughl not to he listened toby a Court. "It is the policy of the law, and di eccfcsary to the purity and useful- C ess of the institution of marriage, ti< liat those who enter into it, should " cgard it as a relation, permanent as ui lieirown lives; its duration not de- di ending upon the whim or caprice of fo ithcr, and only to bo dissolved when ?i iic improper conduct of onfl of the Si artics shall render the connection m holly intolerable or inconsistent ti 'ith the happiness or safety of the al ther." Griflin vr. UriCin, 8 13. Mun- K do, 120, tl: Judge Swift observes: ''The ren- j?? eringof the contract of matrimony | d< idissoluble, is running into tho op. sn osito extreme from that of permit- ra rig divorces at tho pleasure of the a? artics. There avo many persons " ho, on the idea that tho marriago fo intrant cannot bo vacated for any D lisconduct, will not bchavo with tho tl I'nnvinfv tliATT wnnlil if * 1- ~ * - ? i "J CI1V3 CUIILIU- | U< [iqco of tbo contract wore dependent at a their exertions to render them- vi ilves agreeable to the porsons with h< horn, they are connected.?It is ? hj reat hardship, that a person, who as been unfortunato in forming a 03 atrimonial connection must bo for. a iror prcoludcd from any possibility rc r extricating himself from such a tc lisfortuno, and be shut out from en. di ying the boflt pliftisures of life. This bi >nsideration, instead of adding to m to happiness of tho connection, must w ightcn persons from entering ioto it in J t is therefore the best policy, to :ul init si dissolution of the contract when it is evident that the partie: 1 casiuot derive from it tho bcnclits I'm which it was instituted, and when in stead of being a source of the highest pleasure ami most enduring felicity it becomes the source of tho deepest woe and misery." 1 Swift's System 191. " Whether the jurisdiction should be extended in granting divorces a vinculo matrimonii boyond the causes preexisting at marriage, and to adultery, .,...1 1 * " * ii1111 iiuuieious desertion suliscnuont thereto, need not now bo discussed. LTp to this point, tit least, tho judicial tribunals of most civilized countries exercise jurisdiction. In this State heretofore, marriage, from any cause and under all circumstances, has been absolutely indissoluble?tho Courts taking (he ground that the Legislature had not invested Lhern with power to declare a divorce, ind have uniformly declined to exercise it. The Legislature has steadily refused to grant a dissolution of tho marriage tie. There is, perhaps, no athcr civilized country, either protes.ant or catholic, that, lias not made l * * |nuii.-iwu. L-uuur lugisiauveiy or udicially, for dissolving marriage for idequate cause, except this Stale. In England the Kcelesiastieal Courts ;rant divorces a mcnsu ct thoro, and ho British Parliament a vinculo matimouii. Tn Scot laud Jio marriage is Unsolved for adultery or maiicious lescrtion, hy the Courts, and in tin>talcs of the American Cukes, the a:ne powers are exercised by most >f the Courts for causes already numerated, and for other.* not monioncd. In llhame vs. Khame, MeCord's C. 1. 107. .lnd.ro "..it v/vij i?i 4?> uin iz11v~?t lur i limony, admitted that, in England, itch cases belonged to the Kcclcsiast::tl Courts, hut considered tiiat alii.to- j v was an exception in this Slate by ho practice of the Court of' Kijuity, and i'osn necessity. and huld that "thcjii- ! i diction of the Court must be liuiitid o the allowing of'alimony and tOriU'.h rilcrs as are necessarily incident to ! lie effectual execution of such a de- i < ree." Again he says: "Although I ur Courts of Equity "have not the j ower to grant divorces, yet as the wo subjects?divorce and alimony? . re inseparable companions in England. [ e must look to the causes of Jivoicc > ascertain the grounds on which alilony will he allowed.'' In Prather vs. I'rather, 1 Dcss.. C. !. 31, in considering a hill for alimoy. Chas. jJehSawssure say:-: "And' liis from the necessity of the Case. nd to redress an injury not other- j isc remediable?I nlliuhi ises which wore dccidcd in this j ourl some years bince?expressly on j ?e ground that no other tribunal >ul I give redress* and it would b;> uniciuly and highly mischievous if the ourt did not interfere;." Chief Justice Dunkin, in the case of [atiison vs. Mattison, I Strobhart, C. . 387, which was a hill to declare a 1 aliity of marriage, said "that there I as no distinction in such a bill and a j 11 for divorce; thai the Legislature lid not conferred sm\' ?n#.K ?1:~ I J JUtJJJUlU- j on on the Court, and that there was | :> inherent power in the Court to ex- j cisc it." He adopts the ruling ofj mlgc Nott, that the allowance of! imony and incidental orders for curring it into efi'uct, was properly cogizable hy the Court of Equity from practice and necessity,'' but could not j 3 extended to a divorce or declaring I Vnarnage null and void. Jn all the cases in this State, juris- j ction in alimony is taken by the j ourt from ' necessity and the prac | to of the Court." There was no < practice " of the Court in such a case ltil "necessity" induced its introlclion, and therefore the only ground r assuming jurisdiction was " ncccs- i ty." The Court of Equity in this i late takes jurisdiction in cases of ali- j 10113' without any Irghlutive authoriza- , when such cases arc cognizable | one in the Ecclesiastical Courts ofj ngland, bceauso the Lcifislntnvn nf I ic State has not specially conferred j risdiction on that Court to hear and I itermine divorce cases!?Judge I^ott lys ' divorce and alimony are insepa,ble companions in England," and yet isumed jurisdiction of tho ono from necessity," and denies it to the other iv want of legialativo authority, ocs not the "necessity " to cxerciso ic jurisdiction to annul or dissolvo a sgrading marriage,plead tothe Court i urgontly as the "necessity " to prodo food, clothing and sholtoY for a slpless wife who has boon discarded pan imporiousor cruel husband? Is not tho " necessity " as great to torciso this jurisdiction ~of doclaring " nullity of marriago " whero the ivoltiug faot is exhibitod of an incestous marriago botween father and uightor, mother and son, sister and rothor? or to grant a divorco vinculo atrimonii to an injured and outraged ifo, whoso husband had introduced to hie house and seated (it his table - :i sable paramour?who shared his bod , and received his attentions, while the ; unotVonding wifo received the crumbs i* and nuflcrcd the indignities and abuse - heaped on her by the faithless husband L and bis degraded mistress ? ft'ueb. , were .substantially the fads in the case | j of Jelim-an vs. Jelincan, Ii JJe.ss.. I'. II. i . 15, and 1 ho Court, in (he graphic Ian- I gtiage of Bishop on l>ivoree and Mar-! s riage, 28S, refused "to sever the living ! body from the putrid carcass." and j exhausted the powers of the tribunal | by deereeding, simply, that the bus- j band should maintain the wife he had . so shamelessly wronged ! cnanecilor Kent, in an able opinion delivered in the case of "Wiyhlman vs. j Wiijhlman, 4 Johnston, (). .11. II115, j reaches a conclusion exactly the re- J j verse of that decided hy the Court in | this State. He holds that no leinsla- i I . . i j tive authority is needed to confer juris-; j diction on the Courts of Kijuity in <!iI voreo cases?I hat the power in the; j Court is inherent. lie says: "All j j matrimonial and other causes of Kcclesiaslical coixnb'.ancu belonged, orivi- . ? ? - | nally to the temporal cou>*:>; and j : when the spiritual courts cease the j cognizance oi' such cases, it would J seem, as of course, to revert back to ; la>? tribunals. '"Divorces a vinculo j says Lord Coke, aiv canvu nidus, causa j j fil-iU'tfis causa ro.ts uylinilatcs, <fcc. J j These causes, and thai of lunacy, are j i not wUhin the Statute (I\. V.) .giving j j to tliis Court juris !i>.*tio:: concerning . : divorces." -Net withstanding that fact, i . ' I the- learned Chancellor r-avs, that the I . i j Court of jvjuity i; is competent, not; ; merely i <;!lat jral!v, hat by a salt in.-lii ' J j tuted diivctly and for the sole pur- , i pose, to pronounce a divorce in such I ,,,-VS." I j V. hatcvor opinion may be enter- ; i tained of the soundness of the judicial , 1 decisions, or the practice oi' the < Courts in this State, on divorce bore- i [ tolbre, r.li duabt is now removed, by j < the explicit language of theXew Con- [ I istitution. Article IV-, Sec'ion 1 I provides th:it "the Courts of Common I ?; . ii 1 . ..... . ...in ui;vo exclusive jurisdiction ; < i.i ail ca^es of divorce," ; and in 1 .Soc. 10, ' it 1 hare jurisdiction in j as.ll matter.-- of Ivjuity," Article,: M. faction I>. provides that ' d:v??rc? f ! < from tin bonds of matrimony shall ! J not be allowed but by ilic judgment i ? -if a court. as shall be proscribed by t law." It has been siigge.-ted tlsat lliis 1 clause restrains the courts from oxer-! cising the j;irifdi< tion conferred in i the fourth article until the CJencral 1 Assembly shall by statute proscribe the \ causes respectively. lor partial and a entire divorces and the rules and prac:- f tice in the court to regulate the same. ' i 1 i' ' hereafter" had been inserted in r, the latter clause of the section so as j to read as shall hirc-.'J'ter be prescribed j by law " such construction might havo 1 been admissible but the language used t in a constitution, which must define \ general propositions, embraces the 1 existing laws as well as amendments. t and moditiea'.ions hereafter to be v made by the Legislature. The object r of this section, when ascertained will | remove all doubt as to its proper con- ji struction. The convention framing ; t the constitution, y;ro'?itin?r bv this <?*- i t perienec of oilier .Stales, where Legis- j I lalive divorces have bce:i granted, un*l , 1. where caprice, favoritism and impor-, s tnniiy controlled the enactment in j t disregard of all general principles of ;L jiw and oftentimes tolally inconsisl- v ent with the previous acts of the same n hotly, intended to prohibit all divorces \ hy the Legislature?confiding the li power exclusively in the courts which a would be bound to decide such cases s conformably to law and not by Logir- ! t lativc cajirice. If the phraseology of ; ?j the section had been " as now lire-1 c scribed bylaw" it would luivo pre-! t cluiled the Legislature from amend- i c mcnis in ibo future, ii' "as may here- j c after be prescribed by law " it would 1 have excluded the enforcement of the ; c existing law by the courts and there- j c by defeated the grant of jurisdiction i t contained in the fourth article. The ! (J word "law" in the section embraces ' c occlesiatical and common law as well j c as statute law. If the section should . ii be construed to refer alone to law 1. hereafter to be enacted by the Legislature it excludes all except statute >. law. The phraseology covers what ' was intended by the convention that c the courts in determining divorco 1 cases should be governed by tho exist- ji in" common law and such fctatuto c j laws as may hereafter bo enacted. 1 Tho phraBO could not bo constructed h moro perspicuously to cmbraee exist- c ing law and futuro enactments. Any c other pnnRt rnrl ir?r? ,u ? uwtbaio illU OHiOr C provisions of the constitution giving ? present jurisdiction to the court of j common pleas in all cases of divoreo t and is in palpablo conflict with the t well established vulo of construction c that remedial legislation must bo libe- c rally construed. No statutes cau bo moro manifestly remedial than those I which autUorizo divorce; and, there- t foro, according to established princi- s pies, they should be liberally and equi- 1< tably construed to give effect to tho c remedy?' Jiishop on marriage and divorce. 200?The riiiiv liberal rule of construction applies t<> remedial provisions in the constitution as to statutes. lint it may he objected that although the cor.stituiion gives the Court of Common Pleas jurisdiction, it does not provide how it shall be exercised?whether in the Common Pleas oi* on the Ivjuity :?ide of the Common I'leas. It might I>easuiileieist an 11: it! the Con1, moil Picas Courts are invested with jurisdiction in nil maltcr.s of JK<ptily, r.i.d that tin- Kfpiity bide of 11.*? Court is the only forum where such causes can ho plead, and the various orders passed to give eSleet to its ji:d<:;i:ii;!:ts. Jienee the H??uity ty i-ido of the Common i'leas is the only appropriate tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction conferred. In Perry Perry vs. Perry 1!, Page 5!>I, Chancellor Walworth fays: "But whenever the legislature (or constitution) distinctly gives the right without ercatin/ or appointing any particular tri-1 banal to administer the remedy, it is fairly to ! ? iisfeired. that they intcn (led to vest their power in some oi'i tlie e.\i -ting tribunal > </i* the country." Here the eoaytitulion gives the right of present jurisdiction, .'Npres-ly pre scribed 'he Court oi' Common Pleas as the tribunal, and the inference is that the power i-< vested <>n the I'/puty side, bccausc of the adaptation oS'i the practice <*f 11 t Court, to give I cflloiei-cy to all ncce.-:nry dcirrecs ami i oivli'ps in determining .such ea-o.s. I ! 1 conclude therefore that tiic Kquily of iIk* Court of ('oininosi i'ioas !>as jm-i-<;3etio:i of divorce* n hivhm cl t/torv i'.r.'l n vinculo uintrlntonii. J:i the lattov cla*s, not o'.ilv in cases where! list* cause aro.->e j-.-ior to marriage as j ik-fiued by IjOrd Coke, but a!.?o in rases of adultery and wilful jierma- j nent descriiun in ea-'cs arising sub.-e-' tjucntly. That t ho j*rt?| ?tri* j tract iff irt Lo proceed by bill. That the allegations must lie sustained by proof taken before the fieri-: and imported to the jouri. 'fbat to avoid colhiMon orconidvance between the panics, the allegations of tiro bill are r.ot to be taken is true on a pro tot-f,.sso order, or by | of the i^nies, the prayer j [or an absolute or <puiiilied divorce j >.ily being gran table upon proof of j .he cxistenco oi' defined mid c-stab- j i.shed legal cause. It follow?., hv -:icc, that the petitioner ! ii this case. John II. Walker lias not set j brlli any Kuiik-'cnt legal cause in his | ictition why has prayer lor a divorce j r vlhculo iHiilfhiionii should be granted ; | md upon (he proof submitted, it is mt admissable lo grant a divorce a ncusa ct l/t.v) a. The proof establishes the ill-temper 1 jc'ulancc and stubbornesss of the >ofer.dant, and upon c>;ie occasion hat she struck al him. Was it such iolence and legal crucify practiced >v a woman towards a man that.entiles him lo claim even a qualified dioree a mcusa ct thorn? ' Cruelty is my conduct in one of the married artier, which forms his reasonable ipprehom ion that tlie continuance of he cohabition would be attended with i odily l;ann to the other." Kvuns vs. 3vans, 4 Kagljsh, K. JJ. 5510. The earned Chon! \ n .. O- V ' v ' / "l tut a me ease says : -"What merely wounds ho mental feelings is in few eases to >e admitted whoro not accompanied j vit!i bodily injury either actual or j ; nonacod.?-Mere austerity of temper, ! etulanee oi' manners, rudeness of; imguage, a want of civil attention j ,nd accommodation, oven occasional allies of passion, if thoy do no thrcacn bodily harm, do not amount to lo;al cruelty. They arc high mora! j , >ffonces in the marriage state umloub-' odly, not innocent surely in any .state j' if life, hut still they sire not that i ruelty against which the law can j elievo. 1'iulor such misconduct of ' ; j i . ? -. / i * - ' unci- uj me panics, loi* it may exist >u one side a* well a* on the oilier, he suffering party must bear in some legrec the consequencc; ? of an injudi- j ions connection? must ftubduo by do- i cut resistance or by prudent conciliation ; and if this cannot bo done, . ?oth must suitor in silence." Iu Lock wood vs. Lock wood, 7 Enjlish, 35.1?. 111, it was held that there must be either actual violence omniittcd, attended with danger to ifo, limb, or health, or there must be i i reasonable apprehension of such vi- i >lence." Again in Evans vs. Evans, i iord Stowo'l says : "In the older eaesof this sort which I liavo had an >pportnnity of looking into, I havo >bserved that the danger of life, limb, >r health, is' usually inserted as the jround upon which tho Court has iroceded to a separation. This docrine has been ropealodly applied by ho Court in tho cases tliQt have been Iccidcd. Tho Court hM "nfcvor boon iriven of this ground." . ,f Chancellor Walworth, in Perry vs. ? '"erry, 1 Bnrt., Cli. 11. 51G, says when he husband is complainant, "it is not ufilciout to show a singlo aot of viosnce on her part towards him, or 1 vcu a series of such acts; so long as there is no reason to supposo tluxt he will not, be able to protect himself tuul family by ;i proper exereine of his marital power." From these authorities, it-is manifest that the petitioner bar, not alleged, or proven any sufficient legal cause, entitling him to j i a degree of separation against his ! wife. J Chancellor Kent lays down the j rule against the implication of the ! petitioner in broader terms than any | of the foregoing authorities. ITo I says in Van Veghtcn vs. Ytin Vegh! Ifii- 4. .lobns. C'h. ]?. 50], that "the ! ' j husband cannot file a bill against bis ' v. ilc for a divorce a'mcnsu ct thorn, on the I ground of cruelly, desertion or improper conduct." and assigns as the reason therefor, that the^ common law baa given to the husband sufficient power and control over the wife to protect himself from such conduct.'' Application to the Court for divorce should be by blil anil not petition, though the form in this case, will not enter into the judgment to bo pronounced. I adjudge that the petition be dismissed at the costs of the Petitioner. ! JAiVKS L. OJUi. 13l!i August, 18(5!). rv Tinrnmnum JUliNJSUN. Spoecli in Kr.oxville--Slorftl of the Lute Elect ion in Tsnncaaea? Emphatic Declaration About the Public De:.t ?"Prcservo the Republic and let the Debt Go. Ex-President Jonnson was serenaded at theLainar House, in Knox- j ville, Tenn., on the 17th ir.rst., .n,<\ : in response to calls from the as^i-ns- \ hied crowd, addressed them as Jo!- j lows: j EX-PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S Fl'EECl!. fiili.ow?Citizens : I am not in Knoxville at this time for tlio making of a studied address to the people ; but*bein? called upon, and unexpectedly, to-night, I will tender VOil 1MV thfinl.-u r? w -,-j lui uiio n;LX-jumil. I assure yon I know how to appreciate a reception of this* kind, for an impromptu gathering of tho people to listen to one who has been so often honored by them, always means to mc more than the dry and forced reception, gotten up to order. But being called upon, and finding this large assembly waiting to hear me, there arc one or two things which I will say. We have just passed through an important and excited canvass. The verdict of the people of Tennessee has been rendered, nml 1 the decison von arc all aware. A popular rcvolutiou lias taken place in our State. Ours is a popular Government, 1 both State, and Federal. There j have been but two popular forms of , government since the eariiest histo 1 ty of the world. One an absolute government, in which the power is vested in one man, who wjelda en- J tiro swny over his subjects. Such n government is an empire or a despotic monarchy. The other is ' one in which all power is lodged in the hands of the people. Such] is ' i\ republic. In our Government f we assume that all power is lodged * in the great mass of the people, ^ iiiiu uie nanot uox is the -medium , ol* conductor which converts tyran- j ny from the heads of the people. For the purpose of illustrating the ? subject I shall consume a little of ^ your time. 1 a rOPULAR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. This is a popular Government. It is a democratic form of govern- * meut. I use the word "democrat- ^ ic" in a governmental sense. But the government we have had since the war closed has been somewhat removed from that of a republican ' form. This is a representative re- 1 public?a representative democra- 1 ey. In the recent election in this 1 State the people, in the exercise ot their power, through the ballot box j' have decided in favor of a consti- J tutional republic. There is, fellow- 1 citizens, no liberty without a con- 1 stitution. It was a maxim laid , down by the old Greeks that "the boui of liberty is law." Prior to 3 the late election we hare had, here i in Tennessee, powers administered, < in part, as of a limited monarchy, j So in the Fedoral Government, l Congress lias been for the past four < years, omnipotent. There baa j been no restraint upon Congresi. 1 In their actions they have consulted, ) merely their own discretion. Whon i we exanine olosely .the principles i which underlie monarchial govern* < ment lias been swinging from th? i one extreme to the other of both i forms of government- ? trrT*"?"TV-*"** TIIK J'VIIIjIO DEBT?"SAVE THE REPUBLIC, let tiie iieht co." In our present condition we see the history of the world proved. We started with a representative democracy. The fathers of the 1 country conceived the Constitution which, as it has truly been said, was "an inspiration from otl I high." Lately we find that great i efforts have been made to change I our form of government and to di! vide the Government. Now that j wenre endeavoring to get back to 1 our old mooring and our true r.o-! . ' sition, the danger lies in our going j ( too far the other way. I trust in ! , C*0*1 the good sense of the people | will prevent it from ho.in<r mnr.m-i ! 0 I j into a despotism. It ia even now i being attempted. Your attention. A.N EM I'lllK O.N TIIE Kl'lNS OF TI1E j HEl'LULl'?. ( Men iu power in this Govern- , meat are even now attempting to * create an empire 011 the ruins ol' . this republic. There is a debt owing by tl 10 Vnied States amounting to ?2,SCO,000,000. Those men who j are engaged in this conspiracy to ; change our republican government jA into an empire say that this debt'/ was created to "preserve thcrepub-11 iic." "Xow, what is assumed??j Simply that wc must destroy the j1 republic lot the purpose of paying I the debt, by converting the repub- j j lie into an empire, My country-1 mei! ! bM'nro firi.1 fnnl ?!.?? ' |.>1M llll.-s j to-night, f would rather thct the j r*.v.ms preserved and tho . i ;! go. [Loud cheers.^ This 1 1 1 ereatcd to nave tho republic. " the republic must bo det-t i to pay the debt. Kather ^ hi tIk* (Government be preserved and let tJie debt go. [Cheers.] t1jk hl'teentii amendment. Our Government is one in which the people do the voting and arc the source of power. They are c sovereign. As lung^as the power ^ ts in the people the fcjtate can do- i ^ termine itn status r.r.d powers, r, Xow it is assumed by Congress to s propose an amendment to the Fed- < oral Uonslitution which prohibits tho State lrom fixing; tlab qualifies- (] lions of its voters. Then, if this j. amendment is adopted, Congress y takes the power away from the j; State, that body becomes sovereign s and tlic country is swinging to- c wards empire. The Constitution of the United States, in arranging for rcpresen- 9 lion of the several States in ConGross, determined that Congress- j men should be elected by the old - G| tors in the State qualified to vote j ^ for members of tho most numerous j ^ branch of the State Legislature. ^ inv; iiiaxuia amendment proposes 0, L.o lodge this power in Congress. ^ Let us look at the present cor.-; C) lit ion of Virginia, Mississippi and .Texas. After it liad been demon- ^ stratcd that they had no power to ], secede, it ia now proposed by the n Federal authorities to keep them Hit of the Union. Now the Con- t, 'titution, in giving permission to lmend itself, says, "Provided that rj the Constitution shall not be so j, nnended as to deprive any State of w its equal suffrage in the Senate." ^ The Government now turns to Vir*inia and sa}\s that until she ratifies y, the Fifteenth Amendment she shall not be represented iu the Senate. a1 TIIE REAL l'ARTT. g The time is now come when we! p should consider tlio elementary I b principles of our Government, and j p where they are tending. Away | ivith these shallow cries for party ! Lot us save the Constitution and ai .lie country. Let us rally under B tlio Constitution. Let us know no C rrnrty animosities engendered in ic the days gone by. u The speaker hero addressed tlio ^ colored men present, advising them :>? their true condition and their interest in voting en masse with the j iV^iito population of Tennessoe. t THE BONDHOLDERS. d h Whore is all tho gold aud silver tl 'yb the country ? Our paper monoy iE 8 from thirty to forty per cent, dis- ai jpuut. From 1849 to 1852 there ^ aassed through the mints, receiv- 1C ing tho device of the Government, >ver $800,000,000. "Where is this jold and silver ? As the paper mo- ^ aoy has been pushed out, the gold " and silver has been taken into the * iafea and the vaults of the men who control this $2,600^000,(W0 ^ iebt. When the paper money van- q ishes into thin air, these men 'will i, demand, seizo upon and control tho r property of the country. Jt ^ tho best contrivance ever made to make "chall' oi' the king better than the poor man's corn." It is cracking the nut, taking out the contents and throwing the shell to the people. A COMPARISON. How does this matter stand? Take the widow of a soldier?what money do they pay her in. The bondholder goes to the Treasury, pres cuts his coupons and is paid in gold and silver. At the next desk lite poor widow's pension is paicl in shinplasters. She goes to market ind pays a dollarand a half's worth tor a dollar. I tell you to place tho right men in power. It is tho deliberate design of men at the head Df your Government to change its character. Unless you get hack into the safe mooring of the Constitution within the next four years you are gone. You may talk of ?artic3, hut this is the great qucsion. COXCLcSTON-. I thank tho people of Tennessee ^or the kindness and regard with .vhioh I have been welcomed all >ver the State. " I have 110 conccalnonts to make. I never played also to the people. I never con. oriied my motives. If our Govjrnniciiw ij ever _ . . .w.v^vvt HJVII >V 1 i L ho principle enunciated in my two ast mutual messages to Congress jc the basis of t!ie restoration. In Tennessee I v.IH live; here I ixpect to die. My heart's wish is o occupy a proper place in your eseem. When passions shall cease md reason resumes her sway, I vill have no fear of the position will occupy in your regards. ^ood night. ?<> ?.? ? The Local Paper. The following tribute to the lo,*i r - >< - .... ?--<1^-1, ni'.u 1.110 -umeago Kemhlicr.n," contains so much truth lint we transfer, it to our columns tnd commend it to the careful conideration of our business men nnd hose interested in our town: - What tello us ao readily the stanlard of a town or city as tho apicarancc of its paper? And its outh or its age can as well he dened by the observing as by peronal notico. rPlir? ? w UI 11B itizens 13 dcpicted by its adveriscments, their liberality by tlio >oks of tlie paper. Some papers how a good, solid, healthy founda. m, plethoric purses, and well to o appcarftneo generally; others how a striving to contend with tlio rasping thousands around them, til occasional meteoric display in a columns of telegraphic or local, r or editorial, shows what it can do ? it had the means, but it can't ai - jiiimuu in uie expensive work uii1 support comes which ought to e readily granted. Take your ome paper, it gives you moro ews of immediate interest than rc\v York or other papers; It ilks for you when other localities elic you; it stands up for your glits; you always have a ehajmpion 1 your home paper; and those lio stand up for you should ccrlinly be well sustained. Your itercsts arc kiudred and equal, and on niu.st rise or fall together. herefore, it is to your iuterost to tpport you home paper, not grudingly, but in a liberal spirit; as a leasure, not as a disagrecablc'duty; ut as an investment that will amly pay tho expenditure. Mr. Belmont. ? It is reported, tnong other party reforms, that Mr. aluiout is to bo discontinued as hairman of tho National Democrat! Executive Committee, a position hich he has held sinoo tho-timo of Lr. Buchanan. Tho chargcs brought gainst Mr. Belmont aro ino^ioioncy, idilfcronco and unpopularity. The ufeat of Seymour is partially ascrib* 1 to bim, and it is thought that tho & - mo is ripo for ft movement in thw , irection. Of pourse, a moeting of 10 Committoo will bavo to bo called i order to dopopo Mr. B. Tho rumor fctitjS?*; s to bis resignation or removal may.ffHBBfe e a canard ; but wo ara of tb$ opto4 m tbat a cbapgo is necessary. , ^'Vy' PavticB from Mississippi wpra^in^^^ laton Iiougo, lapt weekre?gagod & a, bunting up places .of a. boucfepo^ ores, with improvoiaopts, /br Voodland does pot appear to inch demand, bat it will bo- if> a. w?r undrcd settlers movo in this winUfc A ?ho-white population of the parish ) on tho increase, and, rattw>*d<>r;nr* ailroad, the jjninprova&jA**""'** oon fce in demand